Kissing is kosher

An absurd justification to change an absurd rule.

If at all a case can be made for keeping ‘displays of affection’ off the silver screen then it should be in the interests of public morality. While this still comes with a big assumption that it is desirable, correct and possible for a government to be the guardian of public morality, discussing censorship policy on such grounds is much more sensible than this:

(Information and Broadcasting Minister Priyaranjan) Dasmunshi was categorical in his statement: “I would like to inform members that kissing in films was earlier prohibited. But due to growing emergence of electronic media throughout the world, especially in the subcontinent, after careful consideration it has been admitted and permitted.” [DNA]

The point is not that kissing should be allowed on screen because it is not possible to prevent the electronic media from showing it. The point is that even if it were believed that Indians were not prepared to see each other kissing on screen in the past — and this is another dubious assumption — they are prepared for it now. Referring to the emergence of electronic media is neither here nor there.

Arjun Sethi, MP from Orissa, expressed doubts about such a liberal approach, but Dasmunshi stood firm, citing ancient Indian heritage in his defence. He pointed out that Konark, in Orissa, is considered a great example of Indian heritage and art. But if someone were to make a film on the same theme, it is likely to be denounced as obscenity.[DNA]

Such contradictions are unsurprising, since it is absurdity that the government is attempting to justify. Unless the Indian government discovered ancient Indian heritage just recently, it is hard to explain why such prudishness was imposed upon the country in the first place.

If the movie makers were all responsible people and they used such scenes (not just kissing) with some class, then it wouldn’t have been a problem. But knowing our movie producers and directors, sensorship was always a good idea. Kissing was never a rampant occurrence in India as in the west, so people getting used to seeing it without getting offended would’v always taken some time.

btw Frankly I don’t find anything wrong in the argument about the emergence of electronic media. To give an example, Indians were deprived of opportunities before opening up the economy, only after the economy opened up they really started to look around with an open mind to things they had not thought of earlier. General local language movie going population is more conditioned to it now then before. Indian minds had started closing up long back with arrival of peoples who were more strict, so changing this will certainly take time.

Fear that the culture of the country would get diminished and eroded with the exposure to external cultures is the kind of phobia that torments the minds of policy-making organizations. Films are a medium of expression and the government interference into it, permitting certain things while disallowing certain other things is interfering with the fundamental right of freedom of expression. We have variety of different kinds of policeman in our country, right from religious fundamentalist, to self-styled moral police parties like Shiva sena to government agencies trying to put variety of restrictions on our behaviour. All this gives a sense of claustrophobia and need for some free breathing space. Though we call ourselves democracy we are not far from communist regimes like in China.

My worst fear is that tomorrow government may enter into our private homes and ensure that we are watching what they think we should be watching and nothing else.

If the movie makers were all responsible people and they used such scenes (not just kissing) with some class, then it wouldnâ€™t have been a problem. But knowing our movie producers and directors, sensorship was always a good idea.

Why is it necessary for all movie makers to be responsible or classy? Why not let viewers decide what they like to see, trash or class. It’s not the government’s business to refine tastes. Restraints on the freedom of expression can only be a net negative for society. Indeed, I think it is reasonable to argue that film makers had to resort to vulgar and less-classy scenes because of the wholesale ban on showing sex (of which kissing is just one facet)

Kissing was never a rampant occurrence in India as in the west, so people getting used to seeing it without getting offended wouldâ€™v always taken some time.

“We want to be as draconian on this as possible, but under the present circumstances, we cant do it, so we’re allowing it!”

That, is ridiculous – and the norm with our govts unfortunately! The government should have as little to do with what one entertains themselves with as possible – unless its heinous stuff – or stuff likely to affect other’s freedom or basic rights(child porno, for eg).

I would’ve been OK with the argument of letting people decide if the movie is good or not, if the cable channels were under control. Some local cable channels can show any movie they want nowadays, and no one would want their young kids to be watching them repeatedly at home. If big producers start having raunchy scenes with all the big stars in their movies, kids are bound to watch the movies, no matter where. Instead of having to deal with the problems that kids are dealing with in USA, may be deflect them for a bit later until India has a good policy around it.

About the second argument, I probably should’ve said that kissing was never a rampant ‘Public’ occurrence in India. It certainly is not where my home is, or the places I’ve stayed at in India (and I’ve travelled alot around the country), but I certainly may have missed ‘the life centres’.

I’m also in favour of having freedom of expression, but in a step by step fashion so that it doesn’t shock and awe the society into surrendering to a relatively alien (or atleast a long forgotten) way of living.

Thank you for continuing the debate. I think you have raised some ‘popular’ arguments regarding this issue and it is appropriate to discuss them here.

I wouldâ€™ve been OK with the argument of letting people decide if the movie is good or not, if the cable channels were under control. Some local cable channels can show any movie they want nowadays, and no one would want their young kids to be watching them repeatedly at home. If big producers start having raunchy scenes with all the big stars in their movies, kids are bound to watch the movies, no matter where.

Protecting young minds is a valid concern. But the right level to set this policy is at the family level. If parents are concerned about what their kids watch, they should do what is necessary to protect them from undesirable influences. While many cable operators in India do not have mechanisms that ‘lock’ adult content, it is also true that most channels delivered in India do not have strong sexual content. There may be a case to regulate under what conditions cable operators deliver adult content to homes, but this is a very different issue from censorship of movies.

Instead of having to deal with the problems that kids are dealing with in USA, may be deflect them for a bit later until India has a good policy around it.

First off, the comparison with the US is irrelevant, because only the flip sides are being compared. You can also argue that American kids are better off than their Indian counterparts. It is hard to tie it down to the existence or non-existence of censorship. Moreover, it is factually incorrect to state that America television has no censorship. But this is not the point.

The point is that it is such coarse, indiscriminate and ultimately absurd policies that are coming in the way of developing ‘good policy’ as you put it.

Iâ€™m also in favour of having freedom of expression, but in a step by step fashion so that it doesnâ€™t shock and awe the society into surrendering to a relatively alien (or atleast a long forgotten) way of living.

Would you agree if I said that I too am in favour of having the right to vote or the right to religious freedom, but in a step by step fashion so that it does not shock and awe society? Let’s allow the rich educated men in the cities to vote first, prevent minorities from publicly practising their religion for the time being… This sounds offensive. Freedom of expression is no different. India cannot grant people material freedom and keep the minds unfree.

As for kissing in public. Yes, I agree with you — it is not a common sight. Neither are fights where one hero can fight ten baddies, beat them all up, then sing and dance too. And surely, those European towns are uncommon in India too. 🙂 It appears that what is common and what is shown on Indian cinema are not quite the same things after all.

Good argument Nitin. There is no point in the mindless censorship practised in India. It only makes people more desperate and daring. Alcohol consumption increased in Andhra when it was banned by the late NTR!

I certainly see the point that you are trying to make, but I think your argument that the government has no role in promoting a specific conception of virtue is debatable. The notion that the government must make absolutely no effort to promote this Aristotelian sense of virtue is a legitimate position to hold, but is ultimately an ideological one. Furthermore, it is inevitable that in thousands of years of Indian history, it is possible to find examples of any particular set of social mores, but the advantage of history and tradition is not that we must adhere to it perfectly (an impossible task, given the contradictions), but that we have the advantage of selecting the best traditions of the past. The government does not need to “forget” or “rediscover” our heritage in selecting a particular policy. If, as the manifestation of the people’s democratic will, it believes that this “prudishness” is in the interests of the people, a case can be made in favour of censorship.

To say that the only sphere of moral instruction is the family is to ignore the massive influence of society and external influences on the young. It could also then be argued, for instance, that the government is neglecting its duty to those who have uncaring parents, to orphans or those whose parents are unable to guide them, and ultimately, to parents who are unable to adequately insulate their children from societal influences that they consider undesirable. In this sense, the argument that the emergence of electronic media has necessitated new policies is reasonable – the ability to withdraw partially from particular facets of society is sharply curtailed today. To use it as the only justification for a policy of permissiveness (assuming there is none other) is defeatist, weak-willed, and an abandonment of the elected official’s duty.

As I see it the first point you make is that it is not so much whether the government has a role in promoting virtue, but how much and what virtues it decides to promote. You also contend that it has a popular mandate to do so on account of being democratically elected.

My point is that the Government is too high, and too far-removed an authority to do this job. You can call it ideological, but I do not think the Government needs to ‘protect’ its adult population (which it trusts with the vote and the gun, in the armed forces) from undesirable influences. The only justification for any control is to protect the vulnerable segments (like kids). As such a demand side intervention (protecting the actual vulnerable segments) is far better than supply side (banning and censoring information), Furthermore, I think using history and worse, tradition and heritage, to justify policy is fraught with risks. These are subjective, and especially in a multi-religious secular state, unlikely to be sound bases for public policy.

I agree with you on the right of a democratic government to implement regulations, even if they were not explicitly committed to in their manifestos. While the question of actual mandate is debatable, Governments are within their rights to do so. But that does not mean what they do is right 🙂

To use it as the only justification for a policy of permissiveness (assuming there is none other) is defeatist, weak-willed, and an abandonment of the elected officialâ€™s duty.

I am not trying to defend Minister Dasmunshi, he may or may not be an intelligent person and wish him all wisdom. My whole argument for keeping valid censorship is based on the bad effects of nudity and violence on kids. You mentioned voting and religion in post # 7, but then why are kids not allowed to vote or become pastors and priests (though some might have managed to become Lamas and saints) or even join the army, or sell them drinks. As for fighting and dancing around trees, I wish you could see how far some kids go to in the villages, indeed in the cities, in trying to emulate what they see after coming out af a movie session. And these things they can actually talk about freely with friends and elders. But when you mix sex and bad language, which the children can’t even discuss properly due to shyness or just fear of disapproval and humiliation, you end up with a confused child.

I realise that you are talking about the adult population, but unless there is access to good reliable safeguards, I can’t see how kids can be kept away from such influences in existing circumstances. The ground realities do not let me be optimistic about the positives of not keeping valid censorship. Even for adults, how many of us will not be offended if we find a full page nude pic in our favourite newspaper (Not many kids read newspapers)? May be delighted for a second, but then it will soon turn otherwise when the wives and girlfriends find out about it.

US was mentioned because, willy or nilly, that is what ultimately people of the world look up to as a benchmark. And if India is aspiring to be a developed state and integrated with the World, it is bound to hit upon similar issues that the West has already faced. So why not learn from their examples and mistakes in evolving Indian standards. What is the use of trying to become a developed nation after such a long time when Indians can’t learn from the mistakes of others in their endeavour to find balance in society with relation to their values.

Again, I am all for it if there is a well rounded policy to handle the side effects. And a good way to me is a step by step trial and error method, so if something doesn’t work in our society and culture it can be taken back without significant harm or alteration. As you also mention, the government may not always be right.

The problem with citing “Indian heritage” when talking about obscenity, public morality, etc. is that the values of Indian culture on these matters have varied tremendously over the years. In particular, the culture became much more prudish and puritanical over the last several hundred years, partly as a result of direct Muslim and European influences, and partly because cultures tend to become more insular and conservative when they feel threatened by an outside force (Naipaul wrote some good stuff on this). I think it’s no coincidence that Indian culture is becoming more liberal-minded (not just regarding sex, but also on matters such as caste, gender, art, and general questioning of tradition) at a point in history where it feels secure for the first time in centuries. Meanwhile, Islamic culture, which feels threatened by the West to a degree that Indian/Hindu culture doesn’t, is becoming more reactionary, at least for the time being.

As for the argument that a lack of government censorship on the media will have a negative social impact, I think it should be noted that the example of the West isn’t as clear-cut as it might seem. Both the “sexual revolution” and the surge in US crime rates happened during the ’60s and ’70s, when media content was generally much tamer than it is today. And while it’s become very easy over the last 10 years for minors to obtain adult content, thanks to the rise of the Internet and the production of ultra-violent video games, social indicators in the US such as violent crime rates, teenage pregnancy rates, and drug use rates have been steadily moving in a positive direction.

In addition, I think the notion that mainstream media outlets will be awash in adult content if censorship restrictions are removed is way off the mark. Such content is never provided in mainstream American newspapers and ad-supported cable TV channels (CNN, ESPN, etc.) even though there are no government restrictions on its display in these venues. The reason for this is that if such content was provided, a large segment of the media source’s customers, whether viewers or advertisers, would be up in arms. I have to think that the same would be true for mainstream Indian media outlets. As someone once said, the media doesn’t create a culture’s values, it reflects them.

But , But what about kids who read this blog.
I demand that Nitin Immedaitely take down this post, failing which PJD (Party od Juvenile Delinquents) will take a procession against you and declare this site verboten 😉

I hope there is no censorship for grown ups. Shielding kids argument is fine and reasonable, but GOI tyranny is such that the first response to any such issue is to ban the expression (Rushdieâ€™s book and the recent closure of dance clubs in some cities comes to mind).

Whether there is censorship or not, I wish the ancient black and white censor board certificate at the beginning of Indian movies will come to an end. Disappearance of that illegible frame will be a watershed moment in Indian cinema.

Why is it that people who complain that there is too much nudity or violence or whatever on their TV screens never simply throw their TVs in the trash? Why do they instead choose the route of blaming the channels (they “show any movie they want to” — well, hey, that’s their prerogative) and insist that the channels moderate their content? And why do they cloak this in some idea of Indian culture?

Indian films in the past and even now have played important part of the people’s lives. Let us not forget that we almost worship some of the stars and sometimes even build temples for them. What I am trying to state here is that we consider the film industry to be a very vital part of our social life and a lot of influence and pressure is there in our society.

If movie directors and Censorship board are agreeing to let steamy scenes be a natural part of a movie, then the ‘junta’ will surely expect such behavior in real life too. So, If they want to allow kissing on screen then they might as well allow it in reality too. But then why do we have fines to pay for PDA(Public Display of Affection)?

If you are swarming the people with such physical love based movies then the people are bound to try to relate their real life with this! Whether it is right or not, if they don’t strike a balance between the movie world and the real world, then it is going to be a tough time!

Not that I have any problem with Smut , but as consumers it is not unreasonable on part of parents to demand content accordng to their choice.
One option is for Channels to self- regulate their content, channels can be rate themselves as U (for family content) or A (for mature),and any mature content channel can not be bundled with family content channel.

Abesnt this, there will be discomfort on part of families, while advocating freedom is all fine,public space has to be shared by all. Throwing TV is a good option, but it is neither optimal nor popular.

If the movie makers were all responsible people and they used such scenes (not just kissing) with some class, then it wouldn’t have been a problem. But knowing our movie producers and directors, sensorship was always a good idea. Kissing was never a rampant occurrence in India as in the west, so people getting used to seeing it without getting offended would’v always taken some time.

btw Frankly I don’t find anything wrong in the argument about the emergence of electronic media. To give an example, Indians were deprived of opportunities before opening up the economy, only after the economy opened up they really started to look around with an open mind to things they had not thought of earlier. General local language movie going population is more conditioned to it now then before. Indian minds had started closing up long back with arrival of peoples who were more strict, so changing this will certainly take time.

Fear that the culture of the country would get diminished and eroded with the exposure to external cultures is the kind of phobia that torments the minds of policy-making organizations. Films are a medium of expression and the government interference into it, permitting certain things while disallowing certain other things is interfering with the fundamental right of freedom of expression. We have variety of different kinds of policeman in our country, right from religious fundamentalist, to self-styled moral police parties like Shiva sena to government agencies trying to put variety of restrictions on our behaviour. All this gives a sense of claustrophobia and need for some free breathing space. Though we call ourselves democracy we are not far from communist regimes like in China.

My worst fear is that tomorrow government may enter into our private homes and ensure that we are watching what they think we should be watching and nothing else.

Nitin

Sachin,

If the movie makers were all responsible people and they used such scenes (not just kissing) with some class, then it wouldnâ€™t have been a problem. But knowing our movie producers and directors, sensorship was always a good idea.

Why is it necessary for all movie makers to be responsible or classy? Why not let viewers decide what they like to see, trash or class. It’s not the government’s business to refine tastes. Restraints on the freedom of expression can only be a net negative for society. Indeed, I think it is reasonable to argue that film makers had to resort to vulgar and less-classy scenes because of the wholesale ban on showing sex (of which kissing is just one facet)

Kissing was never a rampant occurrence in India as in the west, so people getting used to seeing it without getting offended wouldâ€™v always taken some time.

“We want to be as draconian on this as possible, but under the present circumstances, we cant do it, so we’re allowing it!”

That, is ridiculous – and the norm with our govts unfortunately! The government should have as little to do with what one entertains themselves with as possible – unless its heinous stuff – or stuff likely to affect other’s freedom or basic rights(child porno, for eg).

I would’ve been OK with the argument of letting people decide if the movie is good or not, if the cable channels were under control. Some local cable channels can show any movie they want nowadays, and no one would want their young kids to be watching them repeatedly at home. If big producers start having raunchy scenes with all the big stars in their movies, kids are bound to watch the movies, no matter where. Instead of having to deal with the problems that kids are dealing with in USA, may be deflect them for a bit later until India has a good policy around it.

About the second argument, I probably should’ve said that kissing was never a rampant ‘Public’ occurrence in India. It certainly is not where my home is, or the places I’ve stayed at in India (and I’ve travelled alot around the country), but I certainly may have missed ‘the life centres’.

I’m also in favour of having freedom of expression, but in a step by step fashion so that it doesn’t shock and awe the society into surrendering to a relatively alien (or atleast a long forgotten) way of living.

Nitin

Thank you for continuing the debate. I think you have raised some ‘popular’ arguments regarding this issue and it is appropriate to discuss them here.

I wouldâ€™ve been OK with the argument of letting people decide if the movie is good or not, if the cable channels were under control. Some local cable channels can show any movie they want nowadays, and no one would want their young kids to be watching them repeatedly at home. If big producers start having raunchy scenes with all the big stars in their movies, kids are bound to watch the movies, no matter where.

Protecting young minds is a valid concern. But the right level to set this policy is at the family level. If parents are concerned about what their kids watch, they should do what is necessary to protect them from undesirable influences. While many cable operators in India do not have mechanisms that ‘lock’ adult content, it is also true that most channels delivered in India do not have strong sexual content. There may be a case to regulate under what conditions cable operators deliver adult content to homes, but this is a very different issue from censorship of movies.

Instead of having to deal with the problems that kids are dealing with in USA, may be deflect them for a bit later until India has a good policy around it.

First off, the comparison with the US is irrelevant, because only the flip sides are being compared. You can also argue that American kids are better off than their Indian counterparts. It is hard to tie it down to the existence or non-existence of censorship. Moreover, it is factually incorrect to state that America television has no censorship. But this is not the point.

The point is that it is such coarse, indiscriminate and ultimately absurd policies that are coming in the way of developing ‘good policy’ as you put it.

Iâ€™m also in favour of having freedom of expression, but in a step by step fashion so that it doesnâ€™t shock and awe the society into surrendering to a relatively alien (or atleast a long forgotten) way of living.

Would you agree if I said that I too am in favour of having the right to vote or the right to religious freedom, but in a step by step fashion so that it does not shock and awe society? Let’s allow the rich educated men in the cities to vote first, prevent minorities from publicly practising their religion for the time being… This sounds offensive. Freedom of expression is no different. India cannot grant people material freedom and keep the minds unfree.

As for kissing in public. Yes, I agree with you — it is not a common sight. Neither are fights where one hero can fight ten baddies, beat them all up, then sing and dance too. And surely, those European towns are uncommon in India too. 🙂 It appears that what is common and what is shown on Indian cinema are not quite the same things after all.

Praveen

Good argument Nitin. There is no point in the mindless censorship practised in India. It only makes people more desperate and daring. Alcohol consumption increased in Andhra when it was banned by the late NTR!

Arvind

I certainly see the point that you are trying to make, but I think your argument that the government has no role in promoting a specific conception of virtue is debatable. The notion that the government must make absolutely no effort to promote this Aristotelian sense of virtue is a legitimate position to hold, but is ultimately an ideological one. Furthermore, it is inevitable that in thousands of years of Indian history, it is possible to find examples of any particular set of social mores, but the advantage of history and tradition is not that we must adhere to it perfectly (an impossible task, given the contradictions), but that we have the advantage of selecting the best traditions of the past. The government does not need to “forget” or “rediscover” our heritage in selecting a particular policy. If, as the manifestation of the people’s democratic will, it believes that this “prudishness” is in the interests of the people, a case can be made in favour of censorship.

To say that the only sphere of moral instruction is the family is to ignore the massive influence of society and external influences on the young. It could also then be argued, for instance, that the government is neglecting its duty to those who have uncaring parents, to orphans or those whose parents are unable to guide them, and ultimately, to parents who are unable to adequately insulate their children from societal influences that they consider undesirable. In this sense, the argument that the emergence of electronic media has necessitated new policies is reasonable – the ability to withdraw partially from particular facets of society is sharply curtailed today. To use it as the only justification for a policy of permissiveness (assuming there is none other) is defeatist, weak-willed, and an abandonment of the elected official’s duty.

Nitin

Arvind,

Thanks for that well articulated argument.

As I see it the first point you make is that it is not so much whether the government has a role in promoting virtue, but how much and what virtues it decides to promote. You also contend that it has a popular mandate to do so on account of being democratically elected.

My point is that the Government is too high, and too far-removed an authority to do this job. You can call it ideological, but I do not think the Government needs to ‘protect’ its adult population (which it trusts with the vote and the gun, in the armed forces) from undesirable influences. The only justification for any control is to protect the vulnerable segments (like kids). As such a demand side intervention (protecting the actual vulnerable segments) is far better than supply side (banning and censoring information), Furthermore, I think using history and worse, tradition and heritage, to justify policy is fraught with risks. These are subjective, and especially in a multi-religious secular state, unlikely to be sound bases for public policy.

I agree with you on the right of a democratic government to implement regulations, even if they were not explicitly committed to in their manifestos. While the question of actual mandate is debatable, Governments are within their rights to do so. But that does not mean what they do is right 🙂

To use it as the only justification for a policy of permissiveness (assuming there is none other) is defeatist, weak-willed, and an abandonment of the elected officialâ€™s duty.

I am not trying to defend Minister Dasmunshi, he may or may not be an intelligent person and wish him all wisdom. My whole argument for keeping valid censorship is based on the bad effects of nudity and violence on kids. You mentioned voting and religion in post # 7, but then why are kids not allowed to vote or become pastors and priests (though some might have managed to become Lamas and saints) or even join the army, or sell them drinks. As for fighting and dancing around trees, I wish you could see how far some kids go to in the villages, indeed in the cities, in trying to emulate what they see after coming out af a movie session. And these things they can actually talk about freely with friends and elders. But when you mix sex and bad language, which the children can’t even discuss properly due to shyness or just fear of disapproval and humiliation, you end up with a confused child.

I realise that you are talking about the adult population, but unless there is access to good reliable safeguards, I can’t see how kids can be kept away from such influences in existing circumstances. The ground realities do not let me be optimistic about the positives of not keeping valid censorship. Even for adults, how many of us will not be offended if we find a full page nude pic in our favourite newspaper (Not many kids read newspapers)? May be delighted for a second, but then it will soon turn otherwise when the wives and girlfriends find out about it.

US was mentioned because, willy or nilly, that is what ultimately people of the world look up to as a benchmark. And if India is aspiring to be a developed state and integrated with the World, it is bound to hit upon similar issues that the West has already faced. So why not learn from their examples and mistakes in evolving Indian standards. What is the use of trying to become a developed nation after such a long time when Indians can’t learn from the mistakes of others in their endeavour to find balance in society with relation to their values.

Again, I am all for it if there is a well rounded policy to handle the side effects. And a good way to me is a step by step trial and error method, so if something doesn’t work in our society and culture it can be taken back without significant harm or alteration. As you also mention, the government may not always be right.

Eric

The problem with citing “Indian heritage” when talking about obscenity, public morality, etc. is that the values of Indian culture on these matters have varied tremendously over the years. In particular, the culture became much more prudish and puritanical over the last several hundred years, partly as a result of direct Muslim and European influences, and partly because cultures tend to become more insular and conservative when they feel threatened by an outside force (Naipaul wrote some good stuff on this). I think it’s no coincidence that Indian culture is becoming more liberal-minded (not just regarding sex, but also on matters such as caste, gender, art, and general questioning of tradition) at a point in history where it feels secure for the first time in centuries. Meanwhile, Islamic culture, which feels threatened by the West to a degree that Indian/Hindu culture doesn’t, is becoming more reactionary, at least for the time being.

As for the argument that a lack of government censorship on the media will have a negative social impact, I think it should be noted that the example of the West isn’t as clear-cut as it might seem. Both the “sexual revolution” and the surge in US crime rates happened during the ’60s and ’70s, when media content was generally much tamer than it is today. And while it’s become very easy over the last 10 years for minors to obtain adult content, thanks to the rise of the Internet and the production of ultra-violent video games, social indicators in the US such as violent crime rates, teenage pregnancy rates, and drug use rates have been steadily moving in a positive direction.

In addition, I think the notion that mainstream media outlets will be awash in adult content if censorship restrictions are removed is way off the mark. Such content is never provided in mainstream American newspapers and ad-supported cable TV channels (CNN, ESPN, etc.) even though there are no government restrictions on its display in these venues. The reason for this is that if such content was provided, a large segment of the media source’s customers, whether viewers or advertisers, would be up in arms. I have to think that the same would be true for mainstream Indian media outlets. As someone once said, the media doesn’t create a culture’s values, it reflects them.

Anil

Damn! Look what you have done Nitin.
So much on kissing and sexual mores. Any wonder the site gets blocked as porn 🙂

But , But what about kids who read this blog.
I demand that Nitin Immedaitely take down this post, failing which PJD (Party od Juvenile Delinquents) will take a procession against you and declare this site verboten 😉

Chandra Dulam

I hope there is no censorship for grown ups. Shielding kids argument is fine and reasonable, but GOI tyranny is such that the first response to any such issue is to ban the expression (Rushdieâ€™s book and the recent closure of dance clubs in some cities comes to mind).

Whether there is censorship or not, I wish the ancient black and white censor board certificate at the beginning of Indian movies will come to an end. Disappearance of that illegible frame will be a watershed moment in Indian cinema.

Why is it that people who complain that there is too much nudity or violence or whatever on their TV screens never simply throw their TVs in the trash? Why do they instead choose the route of blaming the channels (they “show any movie they want to” — well, hey, that’s their prerogative) and insist that the channels moderate their content? And why do they cloak this in some idea of Indian culture?

Divya

Indian films in the past and even now have played important part of the people’s lives. Let us not forget that we almost worship some of the stars and sometimes even build temples for them. What I am trying to state here is that we consider the film industry to be a very vital part of our social life and a lot of influence and pressure is there in our society.

If movie directors and Censorship board are agreeing to let steamy scenes be a natural part of a movie, then the ‘junta’ will surely expect such behavior in real life too. So, If they want to allow kissing on screen then they might as well allow it in reality too. But then why do we have fines to pay for PDA(Public Display of Affection)?

If you are swarming the people with such physical love based movies then the people are bound to try to relate their real life with this! Whether it is right or not, if they don’t strike a balance between the movie world and the real world, then it is going to be a tough time!

Not that I have any problem with Smut , but as consumers it is not unreasonable on part of parents to demand content accordng to their choice.
One option is for Channels to self- regulate their content, channels can be rate themselves as U (for family content) or A (for mature),and any mature content channel can not be bundled with family content channel.

Abesnt this, there will be discomfort on part of families, while advocating freedom is all fine,public space has to be shared by all. Throwing TV is a good option, but it is neither optimal nor popular.